We have already written that the “OCU” does not have the necessary resources to “digest” at least a thousand new communities that are artificially (mainly on paper) created as a result of the so-called “transferring”.
Namely, they have a colossal deficit of personnel. In other words, they do not have priests who could become the abbots for so many communities. And this deficit does not disappear, since the clergy of the UOC in the vast majority of cases do not participate in the notorious “transitions”. At the same time, the educational institutions of the OCU are not able to cover the need for priests even in their own communities (the gap between the number of priests and the number of registered communities in the OCU is in the thousands!).
This fact was confirmed in an interview for Ukrinform by the “archbishop” of the “OCU” Afanasiy, who heads its local “diocese” in the Kharkiv region:
“The tomos of the Church in our region did not change anything fundamentally, especially in Sloboda Ukraine. First of all, because there are no priestly cadres… we have no one to appoint as rectors.”
In this regard, several comments and conclusions arise:
Secondly, the OCU must recognize that the whole process of “transitions” is, in fact, the creation of “dead” communities. They do not really exist and do not function without the systematic holding of divine services, sacraments, etc., because the number of priests that the OCU has cannot provide a normal religious life for the newly acquired communities. And we have another fact that most of the people who take part in the voting for the “transition” did not go to the temple and will not go.
So it turns out that the main goal and result of the “transitions” is not the creation of new communities of the “OCU”, but the legal liquidation of the UOC communities, taking away their church property and hindering their normal church life. We would call this “anti-mission” and “dog in the manger” syndrome. They do not really create anything themselves, and only hinder the believers of the UOC from praying in their own church.
Well, the main conclusion is that the “OCU” will not be able to provide a mass “wave” of real transitions and the creation of new communities at all. Although, unfortunately, this does not eliminate the threat of real provocations, violence and seizure of churches from the communities of the UOC.
